Utterly shocking. Terrifying, yet beautiful. Emanuelle Riva is simply stunning at age 85 and her descent is painful to watch. Jean-Louis Trintignant turns in a magnificent portrayal of a man caught between honoring his wife's wishes and suffering through the pain of watching her slip away.

I found the final scene with Isabelle Huppert quite haunting. Bravo to the Academy for recognizing a difficult, ultimately bleak, film.

"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

Something is giving me pause with Amour, a film that I find utterly masterful.

Michael Haneke has created such a rich palette of experience in this film. There are moments of incredible tenderness that cut abruptly to life’s inevitable debilitating horrors. The film edits of Hanekes are scarier than any monster I’ve ever seen in any film. They almost cause one to reexamine feeling good in the first place. So, while I say that Michael Haneke desires to present us with the caregiver spectrum and while Trintignant and Riva are both utterly wonderful here, I wonder if Haneke’s design for Amour is single-minded. I’m not holding this to a fault. Let’s start with the first scene. The doors to their apartment are broken down, police enter and survey this place, clearly deserted for some time, and they stumble upon Emmanuel Riva’s long-deceased body. CUT TO: Amour. And then out to an audience of people some time earlier. Now, what this does is it informs me that she is going to die. On the other hand, I already knew that. Not because I know going into this movie that she is going to suffer a series of strokes and shut down, but because EVERYBODY is going to die. So, I’ve got a beautiful message and statement on one hand and an artistic choice that exists to impart said beautiful message and it forces me to ask myself the entire time “How’s she gonna go?” Which I don’t like. I’ve seen a few films that rocket us towards the end, and Haneke’s is the most artful and beautiful. But there’s something about films that move inevitably towards the end that feels a bit neat. I’m choosing to accept Amour for the beautiful gesture that Haneke intends.

This isn’t to say that there aren’t unexpected moments. There is a beautiful moment between Trintignant and a pigeon that had a mystical sway over me. Because Haneke is very focused on showing us the passage of time throttling onward, the performances by Trintignant and Riva go a long way towards filling the margins with humanity.

"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

A magnificent achievement from Michael Haneke, and for me anyway, his best film to date. It's as rigorous as all of this best work but with the added impact of humanity. It's a tough film to watch, particularly the second half but it would not be an honest portrayal of illness and aging if it wasn't. I really can't add anything further to the praise heaped upon the performances of Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emmanuelle Riva already.

I have little doubt that Oscar wise this will go the same way as A Separation did last year. Nominations for Best Foreign Language Film, Screenplay and probably director too in this case.

Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emmanuelle Riva face a much tougher road to the Oscars. Despite the dozens of great performances in foreign language films over the decades the Academy has only nominated about 17 performances, most of them not particularly worthy. The duo certainly deserve some recognition, but they will probably have to settle for a few critics (L.A., NSFC) awards instead. By the way Emmanuelle Riva is lead. Anything less is category fraud - this is a film about two people's struggle not one.

“Those Koreans. They’re so suspicious, you know, ever since Hiroshima.” Constance Langdon (Jessica Lange) from American Horror Story: Season One

It's true, of course, that a Jury President, even at Cannes, is powerful but not THAT powerful - and not all Jury President are as famously tough as Kirk Douglas, who in 1980 came to the Riviera as a last-minute substitute for Ingmar Bergman with just one mission: an American movie had to win the Golden Palm. (The Italian member of the Jury that year is today very old but still remembers what happened as a nightmare). In the end, an American movie did win the Golden Palm, though in a tie (and it would have been a three-way tie behind Douglas's back, but that's another story).

Plus, Nanni Moretti isn't that predictable. Still, Italian critics think they know him so well. Today, for example, most of them literally destroyed the Abbas Kiarostami movie, yet at least two wrote that of course it MUST win some kind of award - "it's just the kind of movie Moretti will love".

Mister Tee, Clint had said in interviews that he personally preferred Zhang Yimou's To Live over Pulp Fiction. I googled to make sure. That said, he did like Pulp Fiction and Kusterica did like L'Enfant. I don't know what happens if a jury president legitimately hates a film the rest of the jury loves. Honestly, I'm not exactly sure what a jury president does other than run the meetings. Do they really influence the vote all that much?

Well, it didn't take long...Hollywood Reporter is now suggesting that Amour has shot to the top of prognosticators' lists including a nomination for Marion Cotillard. Has a buyer picked it up? If it's Weinstein, then perhaps...if it's Sony Pictures Classics, then perhaps...but if it's someone like Oscilloscope or some other smaller operation, I wouldn't count on it.

Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

Yeah, I was going to say that, while I love White Ribbon and Cache, and quite admire The Piano Teacher, I find Funny Games unwatchable (I've tried it on either Sundance or IFC, and couldn't endure it). For me, that film represents a sadistic streak in Haneke that, if unchecked, can push his films over the line of audience acceptance.

But I'm starting to be more optimistic Amour avoids that pitfall. Manohla Dargis also uses the word "tender" to describe the film. And murmurs at other sites suggest Moretti has spoken favorably of it. So maybe Haneke's found the sweet spot.

Sonic, do you really think Eastwood was an impediment for Pulp Fiction? Michael Gebert argued the opposite: that its American crime setting held special appeal for Eastwood -- as, say, sex lies and videoptape might have had for Wim Wenders, and Barton Fink for Polanski.

I could definitely understand someone hating "Funny Games" but appreciating Haneke's other films.

I remember other years where the president of the jury did not agree with the Palme winner. In 2005, L'Enfant won the Palme but Emir Kusterica, who was president, said he preferred Broken Flowers. And I highly doubt Clint Eastwood was over the moon with Pulp Fiction. So we'll see.

Sabin wrote:I didn't know that Morretti was a detractor of Haneke's work.

What I know - because he's often said it in interviews - is that when Moretti was a member of the Cannes Jury many years ago he had to see Haneke's Funny Games and hated every minute of it - "my worst experience as a moviegoer". I don't know if he has expressed his opinion on other Haneke movies, maybe that he has, but even if he hasn't it's quite clear that Moretti's universe and Haneke's universe are very distant. This movie could be an exception though.

[b]Italiano wrote[\b]These same newspapers point out that, considering Nanni Moretti's less than enthusiastic opinion on Haneke's work, Amour may have problems getting the Golden Palm (Best Actor for Trintignant is much more possible), though those who have seen the movie also say that it has something in common with Moretti's own The Son's Room, which might change things.

Huh. I hadn't thought about The Son's Room. Wasn't that one of the unanimous Palme winners? I didn't know that Morretti was a detractor of Haneke's work. That's interesting considering La Pianiste won the Grand Prix, Best Actor, and Best Actress which would mean it was held in high enough esteem that it couldn't have been that far off from the Palme.

Haneke just won for The White Ribbon. Before that, he won Best Director for Cache, which surprised me at least when it lost to L'Enfant. Arguably though the worst thing going for Amour is that everyone seems to love it. Aggregate favorites never seem to win. The Tree of Life, Uncle Boomee, even The White Ribbon...these are anti-Best Picture winners. It's far too early to speculate but maybe Amour will win Best Actor and another Grand Prix for Haneke. Cotillard is looking like a strong choice for Best Actress, regardless of how moderately received Rust and Bone is. And maybe the jury will feel sentimental and toss Resnais one for the road.

"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

Mister Tee wrote:And let me add, if it is grueling, I don't think audiences are just weenie-wusses if they stay away. As one who's going through watching my life-mate struggle with illness, I can't say I'm anxious to watch something similar played out on the screen unless it is truly transformed by the power of art.

This is perfectly understandable. Still, I'm sure that if you ever saw it, you'd be objective enough to see if it or the performances in it are worthy of Oscar nominations or not. I'm not as sure about the Academy - even from what I read on Italian newspapers, Amour may not be the toughest, most uncompromising Haneke movie, but it's still a Haneke movie, not On Golden Pond.

These Italian newspapers - even those few which don't think of a movie as a masterpiece - point out that both Trintignant and Riva are at their respective absolute best (which means a lot even in Riva's case - while she belongs to the history of cinema for Hiroshima Mon Amour, we shouldn't forget how sensational she was in other, less celebrated movies like Leon Morin, Priest and Therese Desqueyroux, which has just been remade this year with Audrey Tatou in her - wonderful - role). Still, Trintignant seems to have the most important part (Isabelle Huppert is only, from what I've understood, in one or two scenes).

These same newspapers point out that, considering Nanni Moretti's less than enthusiastic opinion on Haneke's work, Amour may have problems getting the Golden Palm (Best Actor for Trintignant is much more possible), though those who have seen the movie also say that it has something in common with Moretti's own The Son's Room, which might change things.

Clearly an actor with the career credits of Trintignant would be a strong contender to secure an Oscar nod if this movie breaks through. Catherine Deneuve -- his rough female equivalent -- got slotted for far less acclaimed work as overall tribute. It obviously depends on whether this movie is the sort of masterpiece hardly anyone sees, or one that has some level of accessibility that brings it, however glancingly, into the mainstream.

And it's hard to read between the lines which it'll be. I don't think it has to go all the way to sentimental to make it with some Oscar voters. But it probably can't be grueling -- something Haneke has approached in the past -- and these reviews don't make it clear to me if he's skirted that (Gleiberman's "tenderness" is promising; I wish it were coming from a critic I trusted more).

And let me add, if it is grueling, I don't think audiences are just weenie-wusses if they stay away. As one who's going through watching my life-mate struggle with illness, I can't say I'm anxious to watch something similar played out on the screen unless it is truly transformed by the power of art. And I suspect my judgment of that might be different than that of some young-ish critic for whom the subject is still an abstraction.